My 'The Dark Knight' Review SPOILERS

[thecolorsblend]

Exactly. No way is this a popcorn film. There are themes running left, right and centre.

Again, it's not about themes.  The conveniences of the plot and the sketchy nature of some characters (who are you, Rachel Dawes?) along with another generic score all stink of popcorn cinema.  Granted this has more depth than your average summer time blockbuster... but it is still a summer time blockbuster and it exhibits many of those trappings.  It's not an insult, it's just the truth.

[The Dark Knight]

Burton trashing time.

The Dark Knight has more depth and themes than both Burton films put together. That is the truth, no matter how much you argue against.

Burton is both uncomfortable with adult emotions and unable to focus on the overall portrait. He is all about creating atmosphere. Burton has an inability to tell a coherent story. He sacrificed the narrative for the sake of the visuals. Style over substance. He focuses mainly on the villains. The scripts lacked any character development for Batman. That section is disappointingly hollow. He is also a terrible action director.

Roger Ebert was highly impressed with the production design of Batman (1989), but claimed "Batman is a triumph of design over story, style over substance ? a great-looking movie with a plot you can't care much about."

Generic score? An Elfman soundtrack would not suit Nolan's world. I liked The Dark Knight soundtrack. It works excellently when associated with the film.

[Paul (ral)]

What's with the attack on Burton? Because some people find some faults in something that is held up as the second coming?!

This is a Burton Batman appreciation site, so if you can't appreciate them then what are you doing here?

[The Dark Knight]

I like the Burton films, but I will not stand by and take criticism of The Dark Knight.

It is evening up the wager. I have found some faults with Burton. It is creating some debate on this thread. It is called rebutting.

[BurtonBatman]

I like the Burton films, but I will not stand by and take criticism of The Dark Knight.

It is evening up the wager. I have found some faults with Burton. It is creating some debate on this thread. It is called rebutting.

I think you are taking any criticism of TDK a bit too personal.  You know where I stand on TDK, and like you, I have been baffled at times at some critiques of it, but you have to understand that even though you really like apples and think they are the best fruit ever, some are still going to like oranges and thats more than ok.  Heck, if everyone agreed on everything this would be a very boring place. 

On a side note, I hope you do stick around.  These boards will always have a strong Burton lean to them and thats a good thing given the current Batfilm environment, but I think they still need a few Nolanites to keep things from getting too stale.

[Azrael]

even though you really like apples and think they are the best fruit ever, some are still going to like oranges and thats more than ok.  Heck, if everyone agreed on everything this would be a very boring place.

Well said

Nobody is bashing anything. I also LOVED the Dark Knight, it's one of my top-5 comic films, way ahead from Marvel fluff, but I also happen to appreciate it through a critical eye. Seeing its flaws clearly, and still liking it despite these flaws. I say the same about Burton films, or any kind of film I enjoy.

Never be a fan of anything! Always be an admirer!

[Gotham Knight]

Burton is both uncomfortable with adult emotions

I'd argue the same fact of Batman.

[thecolorsblend]

Burton trashing time.

Did you not see the part where I said my take on TDK wasn't an insult?  How does bashing Burton's films in any way reduce Nolan's "flaws" as a filmmaker?

I've got very few positive things to say about BB but I'll defend TDK.

The Dark Knight has more depth and themes than both Burton films put together. That is the truth, no matter how much you argue against.

Even if that's true, I don't think Nolan explores his themes to the extent that Burton does.

Burton is both uncomfortable with adult emotions and unable to focus on the overall portrait.

I would say his Batman certainly is at times.  That's certainly a take on the character that resonates with the comics (or certain comics anyway).  Those are sensibilities that Burton, as a filmmaker, clearly identifies with.  A director should find elements in the material that he relates to so I don't see how this is a criticism.

He is all about creating atmosphere. Burton has an inability to tell a coherent story. He sacrificed the narrative for the sake of the visuals. Style over substance. He focuses mainly on the villains.

There's an argument that BR has narrative issues (there's really no reference to Shreck's hypothetical power plant after his meeting with Bruce).  I can see it both ways actually.  In any case, Burton has always been a visual filmmaker.  I stumbled across an interview with Daniel Waters where he expressed awe (and no small amount of relief) that Burton was able to visually bring across all the expository stuff he cut from the script.  There were originally all these huge speeches for Batman to make, but Keaton and Burton both (wisely, in my opinion) figured Batman wouldn't say things like that and Burton could convey all those things using other methods.

Incidentally, a friend of mine overall enjoyed TDK but he maintains that his biggest criticism of Nolan's film is the absolute lack of atmosphere, particularly for Gotham City.  In that sense, I most certainly agree with him.

As for the villains hogging the scenery, in Burton's films the villains are mirror reflections of Batman.  Batman's presence is felt in every single scene even if he's not actually in it.

The scripts lacked any character development for Batman. That section is disappointingly hollow.

Again, much of Batman's growth is subtextual.

He is also a terrible action director.

I wouldn't say he's terrible but he's certainly not Michael Bay.  On the other hand, I've never watched the climax of B89 (particularly the belfry sequence) and thought to myself "y'know, Burton just can't direct action sequences".  I've always been immersed in the characters, the operatic score and the pretty otherwise pretty good action scenes we do get.

Generic score? An Elfman soundtrack would not suit Nolan's world. I liked The Dark Knight soundtrack. It works excellently when associated with the film.

I don't think anybody's asking for Elfman'ish music.  I personally, however, do not appreciate Zimmer's synthesized scores.

[Joker81]

Burton trashing time.

The Dark Knight has more depth and themes than both Burton films put together. That is the truth, no matter how much you argue against.

Just because you think TDK has depth, doesnt make it a better film. Some of the most successful films ever made are simple plots. Take the first ever blockbuster, Jaws for an example. This is my biggest critisism of TDK. Nolan tried to be too fancy for his own good when it came to plot and story, and hence it suffered for it. I dont find the plot particularly smart or intriging. I seen it coming like a bus arriving at a bus stop. It might impress a 12 year old, but not me. Thats the big problem with this type of movie Nolan is making. You either make an adult movie and except that you may not make as much money at the box office or you make a kids/ adolescent movie that adults can enjoy with a straight forward plot. I think TDK would have worked better this way.

[Joker81]

Burton is both uncomfortable with adult emotions and unable to focus on the overall portrait. He is all about creating atmosphere. Burton has an inability to tell a coherent story. He sacrificed the narrative for the sake of the visuals. Style over substance. He focuses mainly on the villains. The scripts lacked any character development for Batman. That section is disappointingly hollow. He is also a terrible action director.

Is it not a fact that Batman and Bale in TDK is being seen as the weak link in this film? I dont think Wayne or batman are developed in this film, or better still EXPANDED, which is what a sequel should do with a main character. Hes going through the motions....

Burton gets accused of focusing on the villians too much, but is it not a fact the villains ARE more interesting than the Batman to the general public. Lets be honest, this could be the reason BB wasn't an overly successful Batman movie-because of no main villian.
When there was talk of a sequel to BB people already WANTED the Joker. The end of BB set this up nicely-and I think also helped get the sequel made. No one wanted to see any other villian in the sequel. I dont think anyone would have cared of two face wasnt in it. Just look at the hype and fuss around the Joker character.

People are already talking about the 3rd Nolan Batman film, and who is going to be the villian.